You know what comes on the side with the Double Down, KFC’s disgusting new pile of crap? a hot bag of lies. And people are eating it up. There’s no way it’s 540 calories and 32 grams of fat! By our calculations it’s at least 1190 calories and 86 grams of fat.
I’ve written at some length about KFC’s latest effort to assault the already partially-clogged arteries of Americans. Frankly, I’m finding the whole subject somewhat tiresome, given that in the end it’s really little more than free advertising for KFC. If you think about it for any length of time, KFC is to food what Larry King is to monogamy: you might think it looks good, but do you REALLY want to spend anything resembling quality time with it?
There’s an interesting sidebar to this sorry culinary epic, though: it appears that KFC hired a bunch of liberal arts graduates to evaluate the Double Down’s “nutritional value”. By initially stating that the Double Down contained a mere 540 calories and 32 grams of fat, it seems almost the height of gastronomic restraint. Hell, I’ve had tiramisu with twice the calorie and fat content without even batting an eyelash. I’ll have two, eh??
Well, guess what? It seems that the calculator used by KFC’s liberal arts grads may have been a wee bit…uh, dysfunctional. As it turns out, the REAL damage is far worse than KFC has been willing to let on: at least 1190 calories and a world-class 86 grams of fat. Impressive numbers under any circumstances, the tale of this tape is enough to make your average cardiologist blanch…and not without justification.
Yes, this is a free country, and as Americans we’re free to consume anything we can keep down. KFC is free to sell what it thinks Americans will buy…but would it be too much to expect some honesty in its marketing of a food item? Any lucid individual could look at the Double Down and know that 540 calories and 32 grams of fat is something of an underestimation. Then again, if you’re ordering one of these culinary depth charges, are you REALLY worried about the nutritional value…or lack of same? Somehow I doubt it.
